If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Rubio’s ‘Watershed’ Means He’s Ready (or Not) for National Spotlight

Call it “watergate” or maybe Marco Rubio’s watershed moment. The Florida senator’s awkward sip from a water bottle in the midst of a nationally televised address Tuesday (and how he handled the aftermath) means one of two things, depending on your perspective: He’s either totally ready for the national spotlight or he needs some time to condition. And hydrate.

In the midst of the biggest political moment of his life, Rubio was visibly parched. And in front of those millions of viewers, he stopped his speech and reached for a bottle of water. These State of the Union responses can be like a national try-out for a young politician. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal was panned for a stilting delivery in 2009. His buzz quickly died down. Rep. Paul Ryan gave the response in 2012 and found himself as Mitt Romney’s running mate some months later.Politics – especially national politics – can be about impressions and moments. And while he is today the senator from Florida, there’s little doubt Rubio, 41, has his eyes set on higher office

I know that politics is a popularity contest these days but this is ridiculous. Unless he was pounding a martini while giving his speech, who gives a crap? I guess it is ok to be an adulterer, a convict, a cheat, a liar, an associate of the mafia or terrorists or communists or the KKK but you had better damn well drink your water in a manner pleasing to those on Twitter! Are you ****ing kidding me? How does this **** make the news?

Most people aren't smart enough to argue with the content of his speech but they can make themselves feel better by belittling something trivial such as his looks or mannerisms.

Style over substance.

Look at our current President's resume prior to being elected. Take away his style and other culturally/historically significant, but otherwise irrelevant, traits ... how many 1/2 term junior Senators would receive any relevant party's nomination based on their resume alone?

“I’m somewhat disappointed that more African Americans don’t think for themselves and just go with whatever they’re supposed to say and think."

Most people aren't smart enough to argue with the content of his speech but they can make themselves feel better by belittling something trivial such as his looks or mannerisms.

Style over substance.

Look at our current President's resume prior to being elected. Take away his style and other culturally/historically significant, but otherwise irrelevant, traits ... how many 1/2 term junior Senators would receive any relevant party's nomination based on their resume alone?

Not many Senators win, period. But if you're looking at scant resumes there's a guy who won the presidency despite being only a one term congressman with his only other claim to fame being a failed Senate race. Maybe you've heard of him. Some dude named Lincoln.

Arguably the most experienced president we've ever had is the guy who preceded Lincoln, James Buchanan, who was a Congressman, Senator, a nominee to the Supreme Court (which he turned down), minister to Russia and the UK and also Secretary of State.

Experience which helped him become arguably the worst president we've ever had.

Unless things change in the opposite direction they've been trending our current President will be likely be compared to Buchanan much more often than Lincoln.

A thin resume might turn out to be the strongest link between Lincoln and Obama.

There's no link between having a nice sounding resume and being a good president. None. Take the 20th century, since you don't seem to like the 19th. Teddy Roosevelt had only been Governor for one year before becoming Vice President. Eisenhower had never been elected to anything. FDR had only been Governor for three years.

Richard Nixon, on the other hand, had been a congressman, senator and vice president.

There are good presidents with good resumes and bad ones. Same with short resumes. It's just not a statistically relevant variable. If and when Marco Rubio runs for president, it's not something that will factor negatively in how I view him.

There's no link between having a nice sounding resume and being a good president. None. Take the 20th century, since you don't seem to like the 19th. Teddy Roosevelt had only been Governor for one year before becoming Vice President. Eisenhower had never been elected to anything. FDR had only been Governor for three years.

The only way to build a Presidential resume is through politics? Really?

Career politicians make the worst Presidents.

Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt had numerous admirable achievements prior to running for office.